Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SurfaceBook 2x Faster than MBP False Advertising..

I bet it's a butchered 950M with the core clock speed of a 930M (having the same CUDA cores to boot) while having the GDDR5 RAM (which runs half the MHZ of the 950M) to keep the TDP low and prevent overheating.

Either way, Maxwell is only good for gaming. I bet the Iris Pro 5200 will smoke it in OpenCL and OpenGL purposes. Heck even QuickSync is faster than CUDA in video editing purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001
duervo said:
HD 520 compared to Iris 6100:

Larger texture rate, large pixel rate, supports DDR4, supports higher resolutions, and uses less power.

Not sure where people are getting the idea that Iris 6100 beats HD 520. On its worst day, (with DDR3), the HD 520 would be really close to a tie with Iris 6100 (edge given to the latter, but some real world benchies will give the definitive answer here, which means everyone is going to have to wait and see.) There's something to be said for higher resolution support, higher pixel and texture rates, while using less power. Something that seems to be ignored in this thread for some reason.

Oh, and the blurb about higher TDP always outperforming lower TDP, regardless of generation, is complete hogwash. Tell that to Nehalem and see what they have to say about Penryn. Hell, for that matter, tell that to HD 520 (15W) and see what they have to say about Iris 6100 (28W).

I don't completely buy "2x faster" either, but I also believe that hyperbole is starting to get out of hand on both sides.
Click to expand...

Microsoft could do better. Microsoft could've include a 28W skylake or even better a 37W skylake in the Surfacebook and underclock it to save power when in tablet mode and allow it to run at full power in notebook mode. The 28W and 37W have significantly better clock speeds, integrated graphics and I would take that over a mediocre dGPU any day. The Macbook Pro integrated graphics is actually already top in its class and I don't think it vary significantly with a mediocre dGPU which consumes more power.
I'm not an engineer and I don't know if that's possible, but I think this would be a greater implementation if its possible.
 
You must be joking ?

There is clearly a Macbook Pro with retina display , look how thin it is and no macbook pro logo on the screen .

The processor even if is 15W will be QUAD CORE miles better than DUAL CORE .
Also dedicated graphics are miles better than that joke Intel Iris .
 
ChrisDB said:
You must be joking ?

There is clearly a Macbook Pro with retina display , look how thin it is and no macbook pro logo on the screen .

The processor even if is 15W will be QUAD CORE miles better than DUAL CORE .
Also dedicated graphics are miles better than that joke Intel Iris .
Click to expand...

No they used dual cores and have been very careful not to advetise the fact, there are no quad core 15W TDP intel chips.
 
Even if Intel released a quad core CPU, it would be clocked @ 1.5 GHz max on all cores loaded due to TDP constraints. It would be the same speed as the dual core @ 3.3 GHz
 
ChrisDB said:
The processor even if is 15W will be QUAD CORE miles better than DUAL CORE .
Click to expand...

No it won't. A 15W quad core will most certainly be slower than a 28W dual core of the same generation. Multi-core CPUs do not have the magical power of invalidating the laws of thermodynamics ;)

ChrisDB said:
Also dedicated graphics are miles better than that joke Intel Iris .
Click to expand...

Intel Iris is on par of faster than the entry-level mobile dGPUs. This is one of the reasons why entry-level GPUs have been disappearing. There is no reason in a dedicated GPU if the integrated one is better. Just a few years ago, any kind of gaming on an integrated GPU was unthinkable. Current iGPUs however allow one to play modern games with reasonable quality.
 
The only possible thing they could have been referring to is the GPU. Some SB have a dedicated nvidia GPU, which I would expect to be faster than the intel integrated GPU Apple uses.
 
Freyqq said:
The only possible thing they could have been referring to is the GPU. Some SB have a dedicated nvidia GPU, which I would expect to be faster than the intel integrated GPU Apple uses.
Click to expand...

It will be on gaming and CUDA but may well get beaten by the Intel high end "IRIS and IRIS Pro" or whatever they are now called for skylake, iGPU's that apple uses for Open Gl and Open Cl usage.
 
leman said:
It has been done before — to manipulate the customer. The reason why I don't think that GPU will be very fast is because of the dimensions of that laptop and the size of the battery. A Maxwell GPU (around 940M level) would certainly explain where they have that 2x performance increase over the MacBook Pro (13") from. I am curious though to what they have come up with.
Click to expand...
It cannot be anything below a 950m because it uses GDDR5 VRAM. rules out anything lower and I also suspect it's a modified 950m.
 
i asked in the other thread as well but didnt get many ideas

which one would wou prefer

lower TDP + dpgu (surface) OR higher TDP + igpu (mbp)

i am really in between hence i am asking
 
cycledance said:
microsoft is a lying pos. as i said hours after news media all over the world mindlessly copy pasted their false claims.

and this should be a story on the front page.

waiting for the reports on the snapping hinge on this crap design.
Click to expand...

And you know it's a crap design hinge because you've gotten your hands on one and tested it? :rolleyes:
 
newellj said:
Stop by the El Cap subforum if you want to see how badly you can eff up an OS. And that's coming after Yosemite (which I have had good luck with, btw), which is now only the second-most hated version of OS X.
Click to expand...

Ever considered that the millions that are using El Cap just fine don't feel the need to pop in to that sub-forum and drown out the tiny-fraction of irate "haters"?

I for one have had zero problems with El Cap and Yosemite. Now Lion ... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001
MagicBoy said:
Ever considered that the millions that are using El Cap just fine don't feel the need to pop in to that sub-forum and drown out the tiny-fraction of irate "haters"?

I for one have had zero problems with El Cap and Yosemite. Now Lion ... ;)
Click to expand...

Same applies to Windows. And I do think El Cap is different: the documented number of programs that won't run or won't run properly is shocking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queen6
Not sure how long you've been using Macs for?

There's always something that doesn't work as intended with a new OS X. My favourite was the third party "Application Enhancer" that bricked machines for lots of people who rushed out to buy Leopard and upgraded. Yosemite and El Cap with public betas have been pretty smooth by comparison.
 
cycledance said:
microsoft is a lying pos. as i said hours after news media all over the world mindlessly copy pasted their false claims.

and this should be a story on the front page.

waiting for the reports on the snapping hinge on this crap design.
Click to expand...

newellj said:
And you know it's a crap design hinge because you've gotten your hands on one and tested it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I would be more concerned with the spring locking mechanism.

Screen-Shot-2015-10-06-at-11.34.26-AM-980x613.png
 
While I still like the hardware that's come out of Microsoft, the dGPU thing is kind of misleading when they were able to put the dGPU outside of the tablet where the keyboard is. I thought Microsoft had beat Apple in that they placed a dGPU inside the same space as the tablet portion of the Surface Book. Microsoft wouldn't have been able to put a dGPU inside the 13" rMBP either. They essentially got to "cheat" by having space behind both the screen and under the keyboard to place components. You also won't even get the dGPU unless you buy the higher-end models. That means on the low end it's going to be 10% faster than the 13" rMBP at best, purely due to the Surface Book running Skylake with a $200 premium for the Surface Book. The screen and pen are going to be selling point of the Surface Book, but overall you are not saving any money vs a rMBP.
 
Last edited:
Rhinoevans said:
How is it false?

Then I realized, the Macbook Pro in the ad is running Mavericks.. it's 2012 version which probably come with a CD ROM and Hard Drive and 4G of RAM.

That is the Macbook Pro I have, and yes it is in fact a MacBook Pro. I am sure that the CD Rom must slow it down for comparison.
Click to expand...
It's misleading at the very least, if not outright false.

What if someone advertised a machine that was 1000x the speed of an iMac... And just neglected to mention that it was a 1998 iMac? I mean... It's an iMac... So it's not technically "false," but it's horribly misleading.
 
There's term called puffery where companies can "lie" for advertising purposes. I think this is one case where we are seeing some puffery going on. I have no idea if they are comparing their machine to an older mac or one running an older version of OS X. I just don't think there's enough information being provided to jump to that conclusion. I don't buy into the the idea that you can make that conclusion from a single screen shot of the desktop.

I'm not saying they didn't, but rather three's insufficient data for me.

I do think the SurfaceBook will be faster then the 13" MacBook because its running a newer faster CPU and has a dGPU which the 13" MBP does not have.

Its too early to see how fast the SurfaceBook actually is, since its not even out in people's hands yet. Time will tell who fast the SB really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back